All Activity

Is it the ritual that condemns you or your own heart’s knowledge or possibly the burden that habits can add by shaping thoughts and feelings as well as behaviours over time so we become more and more what we do, making it more difficult to turn to obedience to the Lord? I have also been told quite a few times it is better to be baptized even if one goes inactive and not get excommunicated because then when you are ready to truly accept it, the ordinance is already in place.

Despite major etiquettes and Sunnahs to act upon, believers still make mistakes that they shouldn’t. Whenever you make a visit to the Prophet’s Mosque, try to act respectfully along the way. Below are some common mistakes that you need to avoid when going to Masjid al-Nabawi. Raising Your Voice Speaking loudly is not considered a good act in Islam. Well, it applies to every aspect of your life. If you’re heading to Masjid al-Nabawi after completing Umrah, ensure not to raise your voice. Yelling in the prayer hall, making supplications loudly, or having loud conversations can not only disturb others but the peace of the mosque as well. Your presence should reflect reverence. Pushing, Shoving, or Rushing Pushing, shoving, or rushing is also advised to be avoided during a visit to Masjid al-Nabawi. Rawdah is a place where every Muslim wants to reach. This is why this divine site is often too crowded. Since there will be a rush, there is no need to push others to get access to Rawdah. It is against the leading principles of Islam. You need to stay calm and act patiently in that situation. Wasting Time in Idle Talk We’ve seen devotees entering holy places, such as Masjid al-Nabawi, and making use of social media excessively. Some waste time in idle talk, which isn’t good. Remember the sole purpose of your visit to the mosque. Instead of wasting your time in worldly affairs, engage yourself in spiritual activities. Offer prayers and make duas while asking Allah to forgive all your past sins. Touching or Kissing Structures for Blessings It is not a Sunnah to touch or kiss structures in the mosque for blessings. The true blessings are not kept in objects, but they are in following the path of Islam. You should do recitation as much as possible to please Allah and his beloved Prophet PBUH. Many believers unintentionally hurt others in the hustle of touching or kissing walls or minbars, which is usually not recommended. Making Supplications to the Prophet Some devotees mistakenly direct their duas to the Prophet Muhammad PBUH, and ask him for blessings. Keep in mind that Muslims only worship Allah and seek his blessings, mercy, and grace. We can act upon the Sunnah of the Prophet PBUH to follow his teachings and please Allah. Make and direct your supplications to Allah Almighty, as He is the Creator of everything. Loud Congregational Duas Near the Grave Another common mistake to avoid when visiting Masjid al-Nabawi is loud congregational duas near the grave. The Prophet’s PBUH burial site is not for loud supplications. Instead, you have to make quiet duas in remembrance of the Prophet so that other worshippers don’t feel disturbed. Some people have the habit of forgetting, and your loud duas can disturb them a lot. Forgetting the Sanctity of the Space No matter when you go to the Prophet’s Mosque during your pilgrimage journey, you must follow the holiness of the place. Many forget the sanctity of the space and treat the mosque as a public place. The way you act is of utmost concern. It has a big impact on the meaningfulness of your visit. Follow the key etiquette and behave nicely, inspiring others to act upon the decorum. Final Advice: Know Before You Go There are many sacred places in Islam, and the second-holiest of those is Masjid al-Nabawi in Madinah. This mosque has great historical and religious importance for all Muslims in the world. Millions of Islamic followers visit this site during their spiritual journey of Umrah to connect to the legacy of the Holy Prophet PBUH. Are you also planning a Ramadan Umrah in the coming year? Get in touch with Muslims Holy Travel to ensure a hassle-free travel. We provide all-inclusive Umrah packages to cover every aspect of your religious trip so that you can focus on Ibadah without any disruptions. When entering the Prophet’s Mosque after Umrah, you need to follow the etiquettes and Sunnahs we’ve discussed in this article. It is also imperative to avoid common mistakes, like loud conversations, to get the true blessings of Allah.

I’ve been told they aren’t useless but will actively condemn you as you under covenants you aren’t following so something changes and happens. Unless you cast the counter spell/get excommunicated.

Would you happen to be familiar with the YouTube Channel “Mormon Convert”? He has a lot of videos on NDEs and how they overlap with Latter-day Saint beliefs and doctrines. Might be one to check out if you don’t know it. I found it fascinating but I don’t really take too much stock in it.

I think we both agree that your approach is rather simplistic. But if you prefer to simply ignore any positive lines of evidence (which result in many apparent anachronisms pointing in the other direction) and then declare, definitively, that the text dates to a certain period (based on your apparent confidence in your ability to positively identify certain overwhelmingly dispositive anachronistic features), then I guess the conversation is over anyways.

I think religion has it wrong. Based on NDE accounts as well as the Book of Mormon account of Alma the Younger, I think the purpose of a hellish experience is simply to change a soul's trajectory. Here's one such experience; compare with Alma Chapter 36 if the topic interests you (and skip ahead to 22:57 if you're open to a non-religious take on "what we're here for"): I Went to Hell. It Was the Best Thing That Ever Happened (NDE) - YouTube

I think I wasn't clear. There isn't good scholarship arguing for a 6th century Book of Daniel. That argument has already been lost and there is broad consensus that Daniel dates ot the apocalyptic period of Jewish literature. I was trying to say that good scholars can be biased, so long as they strive to leave their bias out of their scholarship. Yes, and all indications are that the Book of Mormon is a thoroughly modern work. Which is why scholars only treat it seriously as a piece of 19th century literature. It's not rare - secular scholarship looks at all variety of literature for analysis, religious or not. The Book of Mormon is so transparently modern that I think this hypothetical that seems to be fantasizing about the academy being embarrassed a genuine ancient BOM is just that - a personal fantasy. It's not taken seriously as an ancient work because it is so obviously modern, from start to finish. There's no argument to be made or someone would have made it already.

For sure, it's possible to explain and/or understand the gospel in a way that makes it very similar to the idea of ritual magic. Both outside of the church and definitely inside of it. But in terms of the gospel as it actually is (and the ordinances thereof), I still think the line between ordinances and ritual magic is pretty solid. Calm already brought up one obvious difference and that is that baptism and confirmation doesn't actually do anything. It's the sealing of the Holy Spirit of promise that provides the blessing, not the act itself. If an unrepentant sinner insincerely decided to be baptized, it would do absolutely nothing for them (and might even cause some spiritual harm). Same for temple ordinances. None of it happens "regardless". I think it was Elder Bednar that reiterated that point this last weekend in GC (but it might have been another apostle, I can't remember for sure). I think D&C 130 is one of those verses that gets us into trouble, probably because we so badly want the gospel to be transactional sometimes (speaking mostly for myself). Who hasn't wanted to believe you could guarantee the outcome of an event or experience by saying the right combination of words, or doing a certain number of good deeds, or paying a certain amount in tithing? But I think deep down we know it doesn't work that way. Maybe not at first but the pool gets pretty deep the further you go (to steal Elder Christofferson's? pool analogy from GC) and eventually it becomes crystal clear. We can only A) obey God's laws because of the Atonement and B) we have no say over what or when the blessings will be. From my perspective D&C 130 is just another example of the teachings in Mosiah 3:19. Follow Christ, submit to His will and leave your will behind, and He will bless you to become like He is. He provides the way and He chooses the blessings. We exert no control over anything, not the doing and not the getting.

The KJV is based on the Tyndale Bible, which was based on a certain Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. The Book of Mormon is its own creative work that borrows from the KJV Bible and other literature available to someone like Smith. We know the BOM doesn't derive from a genuine ancient text itself because it's brimming with concepts and literary dependencies that would require time travel for the Nephites to have access to them. I'm not sure how much more simple I could make this for you. There was no Christianity in 400 BCE, but the Book of Mormon has Christianity before Christ. An insurmountable anachronism. There is no evidence that the BOM is layered text. If you disagree, point me toward all the secular historical analyses of the Book of Mormon that make that case. The only layering in the text are the many changes made to it since it was first dictated in the 1820s.

You accused the minor who was talking with his siblings about why he was leaving the church and encouraging them to also leave the church as subverting their parents efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction. Missionaries do the exact same thing: talking to minors about why they should leave their church behind the parents back, not asking parental permission. The goal being to convince them to also leave their church and join the LDS religion. If it is subversive to the first example, it is also subversive when missionaries do the exact same thing. So YES, using your own criteria. The fact that you seem to be completely clueless that the similarities have little daylight between them tells me you are completely blinded by your own religious point of view.

The church filed its own Notice of Supplemental Evidence - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.163775/gov.uscourts.utd.163775.77.0.pdf It basically says what I speculated on. It says there is a difference between a book having the title "Bad Mormon" vs requesting a trademark to sell other goods under the name "Bad Mormon". It also says that Open Stories Notice of Supplemental Evidence violates rules and that it is irrelevant at this stage. The Court has set a date for a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss for November 24. So we will wait till then for any new information.

Time to break into song…

But these are all invalidated or useless if one is not worthy or sincere, so not sure how it can be said that something happens regardless. I agree the language does sound quite a bit like you do A and get B. I think that is one issue with approaching faith from an economic view (debt and redeem, contracts, etc)

I think we are in agreement. So not sure what we are talking about at this point. I thought you were saying that any one who argued for a 6th century origin of Book of Daniel is obviously theologically biased and so bad scholarship. But I definitely agree that someone who argues for a 6th century origin with good scholarship is a good scholar even if they are theologically biased. So? We don't have the original text of a lot of documents from their original languages. That's one of the purpose of textual analysis, to try and find translation artifacts or other things that show it was a translation versus a forgery. The entire reason I started this discussion is because I was trying to show you why it would be rare for secular scholarship to even be involved. The origin of the Book of Mormon is complicated. It is either 1828 or supernatural. Why would an impartial scholar want to devote years of their life to show that the Book of Mormon was supernaturally revealed? I'm not talking about the contents of the Book of Mormon, I'm talking about its origin. Because if the scholar actually did show that it was a real ancient text, now what? How do they explain its origin? If the Book of Mormon had a natural origin (a found manuscript, Joseph saying he found a set of plates one day while digging in the woods, anything that doesn't include angels or magical stones), an impartial scholar would be much safer to look into this.

Yes, as pointed out in the article, you have the people of Ammonihah burning records of the righteous, which is way after the days of Enos. And then we have Lamanites hunting down Nephites after the final battle, unless they renounced their religion. So you get this strong sense of intentional religious suppression and erasure up to the very end. It wasn't just control the Lamanites wanted. It was total annihilation of the Nephite religious worldview and traditional beliefs. Which seems to be partly why Mormon was hiding the records at the very end.

Thanks for reminding me. I checked out the obvious chapters by memory. Should have searched. Though that was from an earlier time period,, seems unlikely that kind of attitude would change, especially since it’s consistent with other cultures reacting to former rulers, those they viewed as outsiders, etc https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0671-x? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23076995/ https://lugares.inah.gob.mx/en/node/5511?

It's not pure speculation. The text explicitly says the Lamanites wanted to destroy Nephite records: "And they swore in their wrath that, if it were possible, they would destroy our records and us, and also all the traditions of our fathers" (Enos 1:14). Here is an article on the plausibility of records being lost through intentional destruction: https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-destruction-of-records

I actually think that can be quite so easily separated. It would be unexpected for anyone in 1829 to have implemented the Egyptian wordplays, since it was still in the beginning process of being recovered. And Smith very likely didn't not have adept Hebrew linguistic knowledge in 1829. Perhaps someone else could have implemented the Hebrew wordplays from his time period, but then you would need to look for a plausible historical candidate. In context, I think it is evidence that Smith didn't write the text and also comports very well with its claimed ancient Hebrew/Egyptian literary origins. But your point is noted. Sophisticated knowledge of Hebrew-style paronomasia alone does not necessitate antiquity. It just strongly invites that interpretation, once the contextual historical data is accounted for.

Pure speculation, but given the history between the Lamanites and Nephites, where the Nephites made a big deal at times as how they were the chosen ones, the establishment and the Lamanites were the rebels, the barbarians, it would make sense to me that the Lamanites would want to remove any suggestions they were not the superior people, that they did not have the divine right to rule, were usurpers, etc. Possibly even more so since they were a minority within a larger culture and we know how well that can go for a minority. Not surprising if they chose to erase their “Lamanite” identity out of existence, which probably wasn’t too hard to do if there was intermarriage from the beginning as is suggested by the accelerated growth. added: the text itself says they were seeking out any remnants of Nephites and destroying them. It makes sense to me that any family that had traces of a Nephite connection, even just suggestions of the shared Lehite culture between the Nephite and Lamanite groups from having been once a single family identity such as family names and heirlooms, would change them to unrecognizable as Lehite if possible and destroy them otherwise. Even in the religious identity of Nephites according to the BoM, there is no expectation of the Nephites coming back, so why maintain that identity given how dangerous it was? Any Old World names could easily be altered. I suppose one might claim a treasure as a souvenir picked up in the war and brought home, but if paranoia and hate was strong enough, would the risk be worth the lives of the entire family? After the genocide of the Nephites, the area became a nonstop battleground among the winners. (Mormon 8 )Sounds like a very good idea to keep one’s head down removing any sign of ‘difference’, any excuse to slaughter.

I think we might expect both because there would be both the religious tradition that was preserved likely among the priestly/ruling families, those with the responsibility of caring for and recording on the plates and the surrounding culture, much like how Israel kept its traditions, but also picked up on surrounding culture. Has anyone fluent in Zoquean names and wordplay studied the Book of Mormon seriously looking for such?

Thanks for the info. Like you, I find it interesting (though not enough to dig into myself at this point ), but nothing hinges on it. I just like learning about the process and purpose of this.

Actually, I specifically asked him whether his missionary efforts "were framed to {him} as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction," and he said "YES." If all he is saying is that Latter-day Saint missionaries sometimes give lessons to minors without first obtaining express consent from their parents, I will acknowledge that openly. It's the subversion stuff that I found problematic. I'll take what you have said here into consideration. Thanks, -Smac

No clue, tbh. I think it's interesting and probably relevant to Joseph's ever-growing doctrine on Priesthood that, in Joseph's revelations, Enoch and his father Jared were the first to be blessed by Adam, and that Enoch's blessing coincides both with the establishment of Zion and his walking with God. Also that almost everyone else (save Mahalaleel) has to wait until the gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman. We also don't really know much about the nature of the blessing. Was it a Patriarchal Blessing? Something pertaining to priesthood office? No clue! Seems important, though!

But your line of reasoning could apply just as easily (and just as fallaciously) to any other modern translation of a genuinely ancient text. You couldn't reasonably say, for example, that we know the KJV version of Genesis is "a post-New Testament text because time is, in fact, linear." That obviously doesn't work, because even though time is indeed linear the KJV version of Genesis derives from a genuinely ancient Hebrew text. In other words, simply asserting that the BofM isn't a layered text is pointless in this discussion, because that is the very thing that is being debated (i.e., whether it has a genuinely ancient origin or whether it is strictly a modern hoax). You don't win debates or persuade others by just assuming your favored conclusion and then doubling down on that conclusion when specific lines of reasoning fail. Instead, you do what @Analytics is trying to do. You discuss actual evidence, whether pro or con.

Do you mean changed the ages of the Patriarchs (I'm using that term loosely here to refer to the father-son outlined from Adam to Jacob (Israel), rather than just Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) or why they changed OT1 versus OT2? I feel pretty confident about the answer to the second. Put briefly, Joseph Smith began his work of translating the Old Testament in June 1830 (side note: I'm always struck by just how *early* the Book of Moses emerged in the early Restored Church, given how dense it is theologically), with Oliver Cowdery as a scribe. Cowdery leaves for his mission in October 1830, and Joseph cycles through John Whitmer, Emma Smith, John Whitmer again, and then Sidney Rigdon. In March 1831, Joseph switches over to translating the New Testament and John Whitmer makes a copy (OT2) of the original translation efforts (OT1). When Cowdery gets back from his mission, he and Joseph go back revise the ages of the some of the Patriarchs (shown in the graph above), but do so in OT2. When Joseph finishes his work on the New Testament in July 1832, he goes back to the Old Testament, and picks up with Whitmer as his scribe, who uses the OT2 (without the revised ages) instead of the OT1. Exceedingly long story short, because of manuscripts and excerpts being all over the place between the Church and the Community of Christ, and lack of a good understanding (at the time) of the Bible translation process from an administrative point of view, the Church ended up relying on OT2 for our current version of the Pear of Great Price. That isn't a slight on anyone, historical contingencies, and my impression is that the Church and the Community of Christ have been very earnest to work with each other on matters of historical records and archiving as it pertains to overlapping histories. As to first question: why did they change the ages of the Patriarchs, they did not add an explanation as far as I'm aware (I might be wrong on that, obviously). Symbolic, in my opinion. The ages diverge from those in Genesis, and I can't identify any particular event with which they were trying to tie the ages of the Patriarchs. Note that I don't think symbolic has to imply that they didn't think the stated ages they were writting in where fake in some ways. God represents things symbolically with real, material things all the time (e.g., the water of baptism representing cleansing; baptism itself representing death, burial, and resurrection). So Adam being 1,000 years old can, at least to Joseph (as Brigham asserts), simultaneoulsy be real, and symbolic of a mortal 'day' of life. This is just a hunch, but Zion persisting 365 years has a 'year of years' feel to it. My guess is that it was revelation, which doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't also symbolic. The only reason I say revelation is that the timeline for the age changes lines up with the rest of the translation work Joseph was doing, which he did consider revelatory. Likewise, Joseph always seemed comfortable with the idea that previously published work was open to further revelatory editing, even the Book of Mormon. Ultimatley, I might be wrong about the above, and I'm not too emotionally attached to it if I'm wrong. Most of this stuff just has me like 🤷‍♂️ .